Huang v MIMIA [2007] HCATrans 218 (22 May 2007)

Last Updated: 31 May 2007

[2007] HCATrans 218

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
Sydney No S316 of 2006

B e t w e e n -

JUN YI HUANG

Applicant

and

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

Respondent

Application for special leave to appeal

Publication of reasons and pronouncement of orders

KIRBY J
CALLINAN J

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT CANBERRA ON TUESDAY, 22 MAY 2007 AT 9.49 AM

Copyright in the High Court of Australia

KIRBY J: The applicant is a national of the People's Republic of China. In December 2004 he applied for a Temporary Business Entry visa. A delegate of the respondent Minister promptly refused the application. The applicant applied for review of that decision by the Migration Review Tribunal ("the Tribunal"). That Tribunal rejected the application on the basis that the business sponsor nominated by the applicant was not, as required by the Migration Regulations, approved for such sponsorship.

The applicant applied for judicial review to the Federal Magistrates Court. That Court rejected the application. Its decision was confirmed, on appeal, by the Federal Court of Australia where Tracey J exercised the appellate jurisdiction of that Court. Both courts below concluded that the applicant had failed to demonstrate any foundation of jurisdictional or legal error warranting their intervention. The applicant has now sought special leave to appeal to this Court.

The decision of Tracey J was clearly correct. The applicant's written argument complained of a refusal of the Tribunal to afford him an adjournment so as to permit his "sponsor", a chef in a restaurant, to give evidence at a different time. He suggested that this refusal amounted to procedural unfairness. However, even if inflexibility on the part of the Tribunal were established, it would not cure the applicant's difficulty. This is that, by law, the sponsor who supports an applicant for such a business visa must already be "approved". This, the applicant's sponsor was not.

The decisions of the courts below being clearly correct, there is no prospect of success in an appeal to this Court. Special leave must therefore be refused.

The Tribunal was not named as a second respondent to the applicant's process. However, in view of our conclusion on the merits, it is unnecessary for us to address this default.

Because the applicant is unrepresented, the application has been dealt with in accordance with Rule 41.10 of the High Court Rules. Pursuant to Rule 41.10.5 we direct that the Registrar to draw up, sign and seal an order dismissing the application. I publish that disposition signed by Justice Callinan and myself.

The Court will now adjourn until 10.15 am in this Court.

AT 9.52 AM THE MATTER WAS CONCLUDED